The presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is limited in its scope and rebuttable, and does not override or exclude the applicability of Section 68 of the Act. The assessee has the ultimate burden of proving the genuineness of the cash credits under Section 68.

A.N. Verma, J.

1. At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions have been referred for our opinion :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct and true interpretation, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that the presumption raised under Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was limited in its scope and was rebuttable ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct and true interpretation, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that the existence of the presumption available under Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not do away with the burden which the assessee had of establishing the requisites of cash credits under Section 68'of the Act ?

(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the additions sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of the various creditors for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77 ?"

2. The facts relevant for answering the aforesaid questions are these. The assessee is an individual who carried on the business of pawning and sarrafa. In addition, he also derived income from house property. The questions referred for our opinion relate to cash deposits of the petitioners for each of the assessment years in question, namely, 1972-73 to 1976-77. The assessee voluntarily filed a return on December 20/30, 1972, declaring an income of Rs. 6,000. The assessment was, accordingly, completed under Section 143(1) on January 15, 1973. He, however, did not file any return for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act. A search of the business and residential premises of the assessee was, therefore, ordered and it took place on June 22, 1976, as a consequence of which account books, diaries, pawning registers and other documents pertaining to the years 1968 to 1976 were seized. The seizure was followed by reassessment which took place under Section 147(a) for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, assessment was made under Section 139(2). In response to the notices issued to the assessee, he filed returns for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77 declaring an income of Rs. 6,000, Rs. 6,000, Rs. 6,500 and Rs. 7,500, respectively. For the assessment year 1972-73, however, the income declared was the same as originally declared. The account books seized were found to be incomplete. However, the gathond registers showed that some amounts had been advanced by the assessee and that the assessee had repawned ornaments to various individuals for obtaining loans from them at a lower rate of interest.

The Income-tax Officer accepted all the credit entries save 20 credits specified in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. These 20 credit entries were rejected by the Income-tax Officer as unexplained. The details of these 20 entries which were treated by the Income-tax Officer as unexplained have been given in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and it is unnecessary to elaborate the same in view of the limited questions which have been referred for our opinion. The amounts represented by these credits were added by the Income-tax Officer to the assessable income of the assessee.

3. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In appeal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer should have accepted all the deposits without any exception in view of the presumption arising under Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act. It was further contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the provisions of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act had no application in view of the presumption arising under Sect